Legislator Case Law & Legislation
ICCJ_143068 AI generated

Inadmissibility of preliminary ruling referral on interpretation of corporate governance and registration provisions in Law No. 31/1990

Case Number ICCJ_143068
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court rejected the referral for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Court of Appeal of Cluj as inadmissible, thereby leaving the lower court's jurisdiction to determine the specific civil dispute without a binding interpretation from the high court. The underlying proceeding involved a challenge to the interpretation of provisions within the Companies Law (Law No. 31/1990), specifically concerning the interplay between general corporate governance and registration requirements. The decisive legal basis was the procedural framework for resolving legal issues of principle under Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, under which the higher court found the referral failed to meet the admissibility criteria for a mandatory binding decision.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 77 din Legea nr. 31/1990, art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Inadmissibility of preliminary ruling referral on interpretation of corporate governance and registration provisions in Law No. 31/1990: The underlying proceeding involved a challenge to the interpretation of provisions within the Companies Law (Law No. 31/1990), specifically concerning the interplay between general corporate governance and registration requirements. The decisive legal basis was the procedural framework for resolving legal issues of principle under Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, under which the higher court found the referral failed to meet the admissibility criteria for a mandatory binding decision.

Keywords

AI generated
preliminary ruling procedure preliminary decision interpretation of a judgment article of civil procedure registration of a company procedural requirement

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 77 din Legea nr. 31/1990
(1) şi (3) şi art. 77 din Legea nr. 31/1990”.
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Cited as the basis for the decision being mandatory, establishing the binding nature of the ruling in the dispositive.
AI generated

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă

Cited as the basis for the decision being mandatory, establishing the binding nature of the ruling in the dispositive.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

ROMÂNIA

ÎNALTA CURTE DE CASAŢIE ŞI JUSTIŢIE

Completul pentru dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept

Minuta deciziei nr.45 Dosar nr. 105/1/2018

Şedinţa din 11 iunie 2018

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Respinge ca inadmisibilă sesizarea formulată de Curtea de Apel Cluj - Secţia a II-a civilă în dosarul nr. 233/1285/2017 referitor la pronunţarea unei hotărâri prealabile cu privire la „ modul de interpretare al dispoziţiilor art. 192, 194, 197 alin. (1) şi (3) şi art. 77 din Legea nr. 31/1990”.

Obligatorie, potrivit dispozițiilor art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă.

Pronunțată în ședință publică, astăzi, 11 iunie 2018.